DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/03/2025.
In the filed response, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 24 have been amended, where claims 1, 18, and 24 are independent claims. Further claims 14 and 25 have been cancelled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-13 and 15-24 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 10/17/2025 and 11/04/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-14, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang et al. US 2013/0070957 A1, in view of Kamee et al. US 2017/0086648 A1, and in further view of Glazer US 10,424,106 B1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer, respectively. Please see examiner’s responses below.
3. In light of the newly added feature “wherein the processing unit differentiates the multiple spectral images into one of a material in a vehicle cabin and at least a part of a human”, the work of Zhang is introduced, where Zhang discloses multi-spectral image processing techniques for distinguishing, for e.g., skin blobs of an individual from other materials inside a vehicle (e.g. ¶0024). Also, after considering the removal of the limitation “with a single wavelength”, the work of Kamee is brought in to address the “combined light ray”, where each spectral output of a plurality of laser light sources is combined via a combiner which mixes the lights into a combined light ray (see for e.g. fig. 1). Lastly, prior art Glazer is relied on to address the limitation phrase “binary spatial partitioning”. For the reasons elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits that Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the features of independent claims 1, 18, and 24, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
4. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments regarding the objection to the specification and the title of the invention. As such, the objections are withdrawn.
5. Examiner also acknowledges Applicant’s amendments regarding the objection to claim 24. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
6. Examiner further acknowledges Applicant’s amendments regarding the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As such, the rejections are withdrawn.
7. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
8. Accordingly, Claims 1-13 and 15-24 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 11, 16, 18-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al. US 2013/0070957 A1, in view of Kamee et al. US 2017/0086648 A1, and in further view of Glazer US 10,424,106 B1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Within the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitation that follows, Zhang is found to teach and/or suggest “A monitoring system for identifying objects in a passenger cabin of a motor vehicle [See fig. 1 (and corresponding text) which depicts an environment configured to capture multi-spectral or multi-bandwidth images of individuals in a vehicle. Figs. 2A-2B also show other objects, items and materials that can be distinguished] comprising: an imaging module operable to capture multiple spectral images [See capturing device 105 (fig. 1), such as a camera, for capturing images at varying wavelength bands (e.g. ¶0025)], the imaging module comprising a plurality of light sources operable to emit light rays [See illuminator 120 (fig. 1 and ¶0028). Although a single light source, the reflected light passes through a lens-filter combo (115 and 118) for enabling multi-spectral imaging of vehicle objects to be performed. Please see Kamee below to address “a plurality of light sources”]; and a processing unit, the processing unit [See processing center in fig. 1] configured as a binary spatial partitioning [Zhang does not explicitly address “binary spatial partitioning”, however, given its BRI, Zhang’s processing employs subspace projection techniques (e.g. PCA - ¶0033) for reducing complex high-dimensional data into a more manageable number of parameters to facilitate data analysis. Thus, Zhang’s techniques are deemed analogous since they allow multi-spectral images to be analyzed for classifying materials and objects in a vehicle. Nonetheless, please refer to Glazer below for direct support], operable to switch on/switch off each of the plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is operable in a different spectral bandwidth; and wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the plurality of light sources so that emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources form a combined light ray [Although Zhang does not address the foregoing features, Zhang discloses combined light illumination from illuminator 120 in the visible/infrared wavelength bands (e.g. fig. 1 and ¶0028) which can be filtered for capturing multi-bandwidth images. For direct support, please refer to Kamee below], such that the imaging module is operable to capture multiple spectral images of a passenger cabin [capturing device 105 in fig. 1 captures multi-bandwidth images of a passenger cabin], wherein the multiple spectral images comprise at least the combined light ray [The multi-bandwidth images comprise the filtered light of the light illumination in the visible/infrared wavelength bands from illuminator 120], wherein the processing unit differentiates the multiple spectral images into one of a material in a vehicle cabin and at least a part of a human. [By Zhang’s subspace projection techniques, different objects, items, and materials within the vehicle can be distinguished from each other. See ¶0030-¶0033 with reference to fig. 2A. For e.g. a cell phone of a user or vinyl (which can be considered a material in a vehicle cabin) and a hand of an individual] Although Zhang’s teachings are deemed relevant, illuminator 120 is shown to be a single light source. In other words, it is not “a plurality of light sources” as claimed. Zhang also does not address “a processing unit…operable to switch on/switch off each of the plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is operable in a different spectral bandwidth; and wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the plurality of light sources so that emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources form a combined light ray”. As such, the work of Kamee from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest these features. In particular, Kamee teaches and/or suggests “a plurality of light sources” [See laser light sources ranging in wavelengths from 440nm to 680nm (fig. 1)]. Further, Kamee teaches and/or suggests “a processing unit [See spectrum controller 44 (fig. 1)]…operable to switch on/switch off each of the plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is operable in a different spectral bandwidth [Said spectrum controller 44 can independently control the on/off and output of each of the laser sources shown in fig. 1 (e.g. ¶0049)]; and wherein the processing unit is configured to operate the plurality of light sources so that emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources form a combined light ray”. [As shown in fig. 1, each spectral output of the laser light sources is combined via combiner 18 which mixes the lights guided by the optical fibers (¶0038-¶0039)] Although Kamee discloses an endoscope and does not address imaging objects in a passenger cabin of a vehicle, as in Zhang, Kamee does provide a means for controlling a light spectrum from a plurality of laser lights and forming a combined light for illuminating objects of interest. As such, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-spectral image processing techniques of Zhang for distinguishing for e.g. skin blobs of an individual from other materials in a vehicle (e.g. ¶0024), to add the laser light source selection of Kamee as above, which can be highly, efficiently introduced into a small-diameter light guiding component for low power consumption, high luminance, and color-rendering illumination with a small diameter, particularly in an observation apparatus (e.g. endoscope) for observing closed spaces (e.g. ¶0037).
Lastly, although Zhang’s subspace projection techniques (e.g. PCA - ¶0033) are construed to be analogous to “binary spatial partitioning” given its BRI, the work of Glazer from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “and a processing unit, the processing unit configured as a binary spatial partitioning” [See for e.g. col. 6 lines 44-49 where binary spatial partitioning can be employed] Given Glazer’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-spectral approaches of both Zhang and Kamee, to add the scalable computer image synthesis techniques of Glazer as above, that allow for minimizing artifacts and improving the aesthetic quality of an image without adding additional computational overhead (e.g. col. 1 lines 44-67 and col. lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kamee on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the processing unit is operable to switch on at least two of the plurality of light sources sequentially, to combine emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources.” [Please refer to turning on and off a combination of lasers 14A-14F (fig. 1) to create the different illumination environments needed for imaging purposes (e.g. ¶0071-¶0073)]. The motivation for combining Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3 Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the multiple spectral images captured by the imaging module comprises at least a first point of reflectance within a first spectral bandwidth, and a second point of reflectance within a second spectral bandwidth.” [See fig. 2B which depicts the reflectance of different materials found in a vehicle interior. Also note ¶0030-¶0033 for support]
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang however does not address the features of claim 4. Kamee on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the processing unit is operable to switch on at least two of the plurality of light sources simultaneously, to combine emitted light rays from at least two of the plurality of light sources.” [Please refer to turning on and off a combination of lasers 14A-14F (fig. 1) to create the different illumination environments needed for imaging purposes (e.g. ¶0071-¶0073)]. The motivation for combining Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising an analyzer module operable to determine an object in the multiple spectral images captured.” [See processing center in fig. 1 which performs the detection method shown in fig. 5]
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang however does not appear to address the features of claim 11. Kamee on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first point of reflectance and the second point of reflectance is within a spectral range of the combined light ray.” [See 0071-0073 regarding a light that is a mixture of the lights having the disclosed emission wavelengths which together produces a reflection image received by the image sensor] The motivation for combining Zhang and Kamee has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the processing unit comprises the analyzer module.” [See processing center in fig. 1]
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1. As to the required hardware and software, please refer to 0052-0055 of Zhang.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1. As to the required hardware and software, please refer to 0052-0055 of Zhang.
Claims 6-10, 17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Kamee, in further view of Glazer, and in further view of McCormick et al. US 2021/0172797 A1, hereinafter referred to as McCormick.
Regarding claim 6 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer however do not appear to address the features of claim 6. McCormick on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the analyzer module [See computer 120 in fig. 2] is operable to retrieve a reflectance curve prestored in a memory [Please refer to McCormick’s reference spectra (e.g. 0033 and 0055) to help identify potential anomalies when comparing this to a target spectra (i.e. measured). Although not explicitly shown stored in memory, any reference to be used in data analysis will be stored in some kind of medium for retrieval during processing], and compare the multiple spectral image captured against the reflectance curve retrieved [Same citations above], to identify a pixel intensity difference between the reflectance curve prestored in the memory compared to the multiple spectral image captured.” [Same citations with reference to figs. 7-8. Comparisons between a measured/target spectra and a reference spectra allow for identifying any differences/anomalies in the object being imaged. For e.g., McCormick enables one to identify distinct difference the oxygenated hemoglobin response and the deoxygenated hemoglobin response] Although McCormick’s teachings relate to imaging for medical purposes, they clearly illustrate the use of multispectral imaging of a target object (e.g. abstract). As such, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined approaches of Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer, to add the processing techniques of McCormick as above that allows a snapshot image to be obtained in real-time and then output a measurement much quicker than scanning techniques, while also being resilient to jitter and motion during image acquisition (e.g. ¶0013).
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and McCormick teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer however do not appear to address the features of claim 7. McCormick on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein in response to the pixel intensity difference identified is a predetermined value [The spectral comparisons in McCormick (see claim 6) enable identifying difference(s) when evaluating parameters associated with a person’s skin and blood. Although not explicit, identifying risk regions in a measured difference (e.g. decrease) in blood oxygenated blood (e.g. 0031) level implies the use of a threshold(s)/predetermined value(s) to facilitate the analysis], the analyzer module [See computer 120 in fig. 2] is operable to determine if the object in the multiple spectral image captured is an organ of the human.” [McCormick’s teachings pertain to spectral imaging of a person’s skin (e.g. fig. 5)] The motivation for combining Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and McCormick has been discussed in connection with claim 6, above.
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and McCormick teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 7, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the organ of the human is a skin of the human.” [See abstract of Zhang with respect to analyzing skin pixels. Also please note fig. 5]
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer however do not appear to address the features of claim 9. McCormick on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “ “wherein the analyzer module [See computer 120 in fig. 2] is operable to retrieve a reflectance curve prestored in a memory [Please refer to McCormick’s reference spectra (e.g. 0033 and 0055) to help identify potential anomalies when comparing this to a target spectra (i.e. measured). Although not explicitly shown stored in memory, any reference to be used in data analysis will be stored in some kind of medium for retrieval during processing], sample at least one point of reflectance within a spectral range of the multiple spectral image captured [Each point of a reflectance spectrum (e.g. fig. 5) can be construed as one point of reflectance within a spectral range], and compare the at least one point of reflectance sampled against a spectral range on the reflectance curve retrieved [See for e.g. 0033 and 0055 with respect to comparing a measured spectra with a reference spectra], the spectral range being a same spectral range as the spectral range sampled [Same as above so as to make meaningful comparisons that can be properly interpreted], to identify a type of object in the multiple spectral image captured by the imaging module.” [The subject of McCormick’s imaging is the skin and blood of a person] The motivation for combining Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and McCormick has been discussed in connection with claim 6, above.
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and McCormick teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer however do not appear to address the features of claim 10. McCormick on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the analyzer module [See computer 120 in fig. 2] is operable to sample the first point of reflectance and the second point of reflectance against the reflectance curve retrieved.” [Although McCormick does not appear to go into details, comparing one spectra to another would be within the level of skill in the art for the purposes of identifying relevant features that could help further the analysis. In McCormick’s case, this would be to measure various parameters of interest such as blood oxygen level, melanin content, and skin thickness (e.g. 0030)] The motivation for combining Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and McCormick has been discussed in connection with claim 6, above.
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and McCormick teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the reflectance curve comprises spectral measurements of different objects.” [Please refer to fig. 2B which depicts spectral measurements for various objects]
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 9.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Kamee, in further view of Glazer, and in further view of Hayase et al. US 2019/0373705 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hayase.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer however do not appear to address the features of claim 12. Hayase on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches and/or suggests “wherein the combined light ray is within a near-infrared wavelength.” [See Hayase’s combined laser beam in the near-infrared that can be used for imaging purposes (e.g. 0034)] In light of Hayase’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined approaches of Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer, to add the techniques of Hayase as above to help reduce the number of optical fibers that connect a light source unit and light projecting unit, to simplify management against breakage of the optical fiber, and to further considerably reduce the risk of exposure to a laser beam when the optical fiber breaks (e.g. ¶0018).
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer however do not appear to address the features of claim 13. Hayase on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the imaging module further comprises a driver for driving each of the plurality of light sources.” [Please refer to LD driver 12 in fig. 2] The motivation for combining Zhang, Kamee, Glazer, and Hayase has been discussed in connection with claim 12, above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Kamee, in further view of Glazer, and in further view of Duffy et al. US 2021/0349038 A1, hereinafter referred to as Duffy.
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented) Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer however do not appear to address the features of claim 15. Duffy on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the processing unit is a host controller in electronic communication with the imaging module.” [See host controller in for e.g. 0030] In light of Duffy’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined approaches of Zhang, Kamee, and Glazer, to add the multi-controller inspection system of Duffy as above that provides an improved defect-inspection system that employs multiple algorithms that benefit from different software and hardware computing environments (e.g. ¶0002).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486